6 ms·

By nature only a small subset of ads will be engaging and fun. If all ads were "that good" then they'd all be equally mundane. Ads are an arms race for attentio

• azanar 17y ago
  Is the engagement and fun of advertising really a zero sum game? As a thought experiment, I can imagine sample groups of advertisements I've seen where even the best ad would garner my disgust, because it was so unbelievably obnoxious and engagement-free. On the other hand though, given a sample group of effective advertisements, I could imagine being able to indicate the one I would be most likely to click on first. Now this doesn't mean the others aren't engaging and fun. It means the one I indicated is more engaging and fun than the rest, but it is possible they are much more engaging and fun than the former group of crap. At best, I might be compelled to go and visit each of them once I am done with the one before. By that standard, they would all be engaging and fun. But then, I could be thinking about this wrong. Advertising generally works very poorly on me, and so I might not have the proper frame of reference. However, I've found it generally true that a small subset of ads strike me as being engaging and fun to my hypothetical advertising consumer. However, I don't think this is a tautology as much as evidence that more effort and concern will make that subset grow larger.